R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) ). The petitioner who is suspended Sarpanch of Aedla Gram Panchayat challenges the orders made under Section 59 (1) and 59 (3) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1993 suspending him from office of the Sarpanch on the ground that criminal proceedings in respect of offences involving moral turpitude have been instituted against him.

( 2 ) ). The allegation is made against the petitioner in the F. I. R. lodged on 7th July 1993 a copy of which at Annexure C is that the petitioner armed with a dharia along with other persons who were also armed with dharia and sticks came to the house of the complainant-Gopalbhai so Naranbhai and started abusing Gopalbhai on the issue of his nephew having not withdrawn the complaint of the theft of buffalo and attacked Gopalbhai and his daughter. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner and Amu Jora who had dharia and others who had sticks attacked the complainant and gave a blow on his head as a result of which he had fallen down. Others who had tried to intervene were also attacked by these persons. It was also alleged that they were threatened that they would be finished if the complaint regarding theft of a buffalo instituted by the complainants nephew was not withdrawn. The petitioner was given a show-cause notice on 16th August 1993 under the earlier corresponding provisions of Section 51 (1) of the Act 1961 Special Civil Application No. 13290 of 1993 was filed by the petitioner against that show-cause notice which was ultimately withdrawn on 10th July 1994. After the Gujarat Panchayat Act 1993 came into force a fresh notice was given under Section 59 (1) of that Act. Sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to the proposed action and the District Development Officer on 27th October 1994 finding the petitioner who was charged with the offences under Sections 148 149 324 504 451 and 307 of the I. P. C. and 135 of the Bombay Police Act guilty of offences involving moral turpitude suspended him under Section 59 (1) of the said Act. The petitioner appealed against that decision under Section 59 (3) of the said Act and the Additional Development Commissioner of the State of Gujarat after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner of putting up his case held that criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for offence involving moral turpitude and that the suspension of the petitioner was justified. The appeal was therefore rejected.

( 3 ) ). It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that persons who had lost election in the year 1992 have succeeded in ousting the petitioner and the Upa- Sarpanch by implicating them in a false complaint. It was also contended relying upon the decision of this Court in Thakor Bhagabhai v. D. D. O. Surat and Anr. reported in 21 G. L. R. 966 that the offences which the petitioner was alleged to have committed were not the offences involved moral turpitude.

( 4 ) ). A person elected as Sarpanch of a Panchayat holds an important office and the executive powers for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of the Panchayats Act and the Resolutions passed by the panchayat vest in the Sarpanch who is directly responsible for the fulfilment of duties imposed upon the panchayat by or under the Act as provided by Section 55 of the said Act. Therefore it would be a duty of a Sarpanch to safeguard the welfare of the village. The offences of attempted murder rioting causing injuries with sharp edged instrument if committed by Sarpanch who is the Chief Executive of the village panchayat would shock the general conscience of the society and render him unfit to become Sarpanch. The question whether an offence involves moral turpitude or not cannot always be judged in isolation and merely with reference to the ingredients of an offence. The person who commits the offence the person against whom it is committed the manner and the circumstances in which it is alleged to have been committed and the values of the society a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document